What campaign contributions tell us about the partisanship of government employees

Those following the news have probably heard about Trump's tweet this morning claiming most of the federal employees who are not getting paid during the government shutdown are Democrats. Whether this should matter and why might be worth discussing (or not), but as this is the ULMB, we might be more interested in whether or not the claim is true.

The Washington Post took a look, and while they admit their methodology is far from definitive, it does look as though they probably do lean that way:

Back at the beginning of the year, when it seemed as though a compromise involving wall money and a path to citizenship for DREAMers was in the works, it was immigration hardliners in Trumpís own administration who scuttled the deal. Thatís certainly their prerogative, but it underscores the core truth of this standoff: Immigration hardliners themselves donít think the wall is especially useful or important in the real world. If they really wanted a wall, they would go get a wall by offering something ó it wouldnít even necessarily have to be immigration-related ó in exchange for it. But since they know the wall is a bad idea, they wonít trade it for anything.

Ugh...Since this is the third NFBSKing shutdown in just 2018 alone, is there a way the federal employees can just ignore it or work around it? Clearly these things are going to become a regular thing with the Trump administration, so the workers are going to have to figure a way around this because thereís work that needs to be done, and you canít let a president who is basically the Cheeto-skinned embodiment of all the seven deadly sins, cause needless suffering and upheaval every time he throws a tantrum over it.

Of course, at the rate things are going, I more than understand if they just decide to go with the torches and pitchforks approach. If you constantly spread misery and suffering, make impossible for the ordinary folk to live their lives in peace, donít be too shocked if the ordinary people might decide to pursue extreme measures.

Before anyone brings up te Obama shutdown, some facts to point out: 1) he only had one shutdown during his eight year presidency, whereas Trump has had three in this year alone, and 2) Obama was dealing with a bitterly divided government, whereas Trumpís Party currently controls all three branches.

Until Trump, there had never been a government shutdown under a one-party government. There have been 9 total government shutdowns and Trump is currently responsible for a third of them.

There cannot be, and should not be, any kind of work - around. Money is either appropriated for the government to operate, or it isn't. And Congressional Republicans are ultimately to blame. Sure Trump is being an idiot, but they are letting him. Congress can pass an appropriations bill and override a veto any time they want. They still choose to back their chosen bozo. I don't want bad things to happen to people because of these idiots, but I think it would be much much worse if they were insulated from the consequences of their idiotic actions.

Iím all in favor of Trump and co. not being insulated from their actions, but Iím not sure how much these shutdowns affect them. They have money and can pretty much buy their way out of it. These shutdowns probably affect your average Joe Blow more than Trump and co.

Though I freely admit that I do not know everything. Hence why I also remain in favor of Option Torches and Pitchforks. While money is the ultimate privilege, capable of making up for a lot, there are limits to what even it can do. Just ask the French and Russian nobility.

As two examples, TSA workers, and eventually, air traffic controllers, have a limit to how long they are willing to work without pay. Eventually, airports are going to shut down, and/or planes will crash or have security issues. It is right, in my opinion, for these workers to put a limit on how long they are forced to work without getting a paycheck. Trump talks about continuing the shutdown for months "or more." That is a symptom of him not understanding the consequences of the shutdown.

Insulating him and Republicans who are not willing to go against him, would be for those workers to just keep working so as not to disrupt air travel or put people at risk. But it is the shutdown that puts people at risk, not individual workers who can't pay rent with IOUs. For non-essential workers, there aren't even IOUs. Any work they do is charity to the administration.

People don't grasp the significance of a government shutdown, and how serious it is. Others taking on the tasks for free is counterproductive. Eventually, the people who matter to Trump will begin to be affected. (Whether they will blame him or not is another question.)

One aspect of checking Federal employee's party of choice for donations is the possibility of overt or subtle actions against the employee.

I have no problem with perhaps the aggregate information being studied, perhaps as a statistical endeavor, but I'd have far more of a problem with either my supervisory chain of command or the White House studying the donation lists for my name and possible retribution against me or any other Federal employee.

The Washington Post took a look, and while they admit their methodology is far from definitive, it does look as though they probably do lean that way [Democratic]:

Not surprisingly, the country is more Democratic than Republican. Counting all states where voter registration includes party affiliation, Democrats lead Republicans by almost 12 million voters (44.2 million to 32.6 million). In the latest Gallup poll people identify as Democrat 32% vs 26% Republican.

Insulating him and Republicans who are not willing to go against him, would be for those workers to just keep working so as not to disrupt air travel or put people at risk. But it is the shutdown that puts people at risk, not individual workers who can't pay rent with IOUs. For non-essential workers, there aren't even IOUs. Any work they do is charity to the administration.

Thank you for explaining everything. I now better understand it a bit better and am totally onboard with all government employees going on strike. Ideally the communities would take care of their workers, feeding and housing them, but I donít know how likely that would be. Society and culture have so pounded into us the idea of individuality, even though the basic point of a society is to take care of each other. Given that we have an estimated ten empty homes for each homeless person and much of our food winds up rotting in dumpsters, itís obscene that homelessness and hunger are even problems at all.

In the event workers are kicked out of their homes, maybe we needs to happen next is a Bonus Army or Occupy Wall Street sort of action. Though Iím still not opposed to torches and pitchforks. If the powers that be are making it impossible for you to live your life, do what you can to make it impossible for them. Just donít be surprised when cops in military gear or the military show up. Thatís what happens anytime someone calls out traditional systems of power and control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psihala

That would pretty well sum up about how far he thinks things through.

~Psihala
(*"Look st me! I'm sticking it to the Democrats! What? I'm screwing over Republicans, too? But there are more Democrats. #MAGA!"

I think itís a reflection of just how Trump thinks. To be fair, much of the GOP also shares this mindset, but Trump probably has no problem with burning it all down, just so the other side canít ďwin.Ē Trump is totally all, ďIf I canít get what I want, than no one gets to have anything! If I canít be happy, then no one gets to be happy!Ē

Lately, Iíve been fairly certain thatís how Trumpís presidency will end. When it becomes apparent to him that he wonít be allowed to do whatever he wants, seeing as we still have a vestige of a democracy, or if he loses his reelection bid, or Mueller finds enough material to get him run out on a rail, Trump is likely to take whatever money he can, then heíll metaphorically burn everything down, then leave the country and start over somewhere else. Itís pretty much what heís spent his entire life doing and now he has the potential to do it on a national level. He has always been able to buy his way out of trouble and really has no reason to think anything will be different.

It is a standard mindset among the Right, the idea that they are super-studly independent ubermensch who donít need anything or anyone and therefore, they clearly do not benefit from the government or any services that the government provides. While at the same time, theyíre driving on government-owned and maintained roads, utilizing government utilities, spreading their views thanks in part to tech that was developed by the US military, being protected by the FDA, OSHA, FAA, and God-Only-Knows how many government organizations and regulations. It leads to them being able to say things like, ĒI was on food stamps and welfare and no one helped me,Ē with a completely straight face. Either way, they feel the government benefits from them, rather than the other way around.

Itís for that reason why if someone hasnít already done it, I hope someone writes a reversed version of Atlas Shrugged. In this version, the Corporate CEOs still throw their hissies and go off to Galtís Gulch. However, since being able to move money and bark orders at people doesnít mean they will be able to grow their own food, build their own houses, and all the other stuff that comes with living off-the-grid, things go to shit pretty fast. Or in the other words, itíll be something like this, but with more Lord-of-the-Flies thrown in.

Meanwhile, while Galtís Gulch has gone to shit, the society they turned their backs on, is enjoying a more just, more comfortable existence, because it becomes a lot easier to pass much-needed reforms with all the selfish assholes of the world gone.

The corporations the CEOs left behind, undergo massive restructuring and everyoneís wages go up, since thereís not a massive parasite/crazed money hoarder keeping every possible penny they can. With wages up, people pour their money back into the economy, which leads to a massive budget surplus, because it turns out that while trickledown economics does not work (and never will), the reverse does. Ordinary people spend their money, which in turn creates more jobs for everyone else, unlike Rich people who hoard their money on a level that even Scrooge would call excessive. And since crime is usually born out of desperation and stress, this leads to a drop in that sector as well. And since more citizens will have more free time on their hands or be under considerably less stress, they will be more open to create and innovate.

Not really the same thing as they still have access to all the outside features that Galt Gulch deliberately cut themselves off from*. Also, the liberty cities** seem to be mostly working class people who are still buying the idea that it is the liberals who are taking all the money, not the rich folks who game the system.

But it's a glimpse at what a real-life libertarian paradise actually looks like.

And really, they seem mostly to be made of working-class people who were conned by a libertarian huckster. The one I'm most familiar with was just outside of San Antonio and had power but no sewer, no police force, no animal control, and basically no other services.

Though thereís also the tale of Galtís Gulch Chile were a bunch of Randian LARPers wound up being played by a con artist and were left with no recourse, but to use the government they hate so much to recover their lost money.

Rationalwiki has another page discussing the term ďlibertarian paradiseĒ and various attempts at creating one.